BuzzerBeater Forums

I think you're right.
You can certainly increase the odds of finding a good prospect by scouting high on your list.
However, you will probably find some good prospects by scouting low, but there is more probability for those good prospects to be ranked higher on other managers lists rather than lower, so you don't increase you're chances of them not being drafted.
The only way to increase your chances of getting a good prospect, aside from tanking, is spending more on scouting.

Weekly salary: $ 4 733

So yeah, I think he was a 7'4, 5ball/5ball, 18y/o, drafted 46 overall in a league with 3 bots and 13 human managers.
So 12 guys passed on him, that's 34 draft slots he could have been taken if scouted. Instead, he gets drafted by a team that just got lucky, in the 3rd round.

But every team gets a the original list of players in a different order. A player who is an initial three ball prospect on your list could be a (and likely is) a 5 ball prospect on another teams, as well as being a 1 ball prospect for someone else.

Really? I thought an unscouted 5 for you was a 5 for everyone (or maybe a 4, or some kind of reasonable spread). If these ratings are entirely random, true, then my 3-ball strategy would be wrong. I would have to completely rethink my scouting approach.

For that matter, I found my best prospects using the group combine

If the unscouted ratings are meaningless, then that would be the best way to spend your scouting dollar, because you get to see the most players for the least cost.

Last edited by Jerry Midwest at 10/8/2010 11:48:04 AM

But every team gets a the original list of players in a different order. A player who is an initial three ball prospect on your list could be a (and likely is) a 5 ball prospect on another teams, as well as being a 1 ball prospect for someone else.

Really? I thought an unscouted 5 for you was a 5 for everyone. If that's not true, then my 3-ball strategy would not apply.

Yes, really. I asked in my league and based on heights, I had a different group of players at the top of my list than other teams. I didn't have enough invested to single scout every player (that would cost 39 points using the combine and the max you could have if you spent 40k each week is 56 - not much left interviews, especially if you also pay for getting their age/height) but I'm not sure that the original list is anything but completely random. Of the initial 5ball prospects I did scout (only the 18yr olds), three turned out to be 4ball talents while one was a 2ball. That might indicate it's not completely random, but there isn't enough data to really tell. And given that eight of the nineteen from the group workout ended up being 5ball talents (four were 18yr olds), I certainly got more value out of the 10 points I spent on the combine than I did on any of the individual scouting I did.

But again, there really isn't enough data to draw valid conclusions.

I'm not sure that the original list is anything but completely random.

I think you're right. I was operating on the assumption that it was not. Here's what the manual says:

Unscouted: Your scouts have provided a very rough estimate of the player's skills and potential based on the word on the streets. Expect this evaluation to be fairly inaccurate.

I understand that the unscouted rating is inaccurate. But even the vaguest scouting report should still have some correlation in how different teams view the same player. Team A's 5-star player should not be Team B's 1-star player. A scouting report with that much margin of error is of no value.